§

Ex Parte Renault

10122270 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2007)
Ex Parte Renault

18 Cited authorities

  1. Comark Communications v. Harris Corp.

    156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,190 times
    Holding the "doctrine of claim differentiation create a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope"

  2. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Lilly & Co.

    119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 333 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that written description requires more than a "mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention"

  3. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  4. In re Morris

    127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in reviewing a claim construction decided under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness

  5. In re Deuel

    51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 52 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Commenting that scholars have been critical of Deuel, which "overly favored patent applicants in biotech by adopting an overly lax nonobviousness standard." ( citing Anita Varma David Abraham, DNA Is Different: Legal Obviousness and the Balance Between Biotech Inventors and the Market, 9 Harv. J.L. Tech. 53 (1996))

  6. Application of Prater

    415 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1969)   Cited 78 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination "since the applicant may then amend his claims"

  7. In re Thorpe

    777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 40 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims

  8. In re Van Geuns

    988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1088. March 10, 1993. Jack E. Haken, U.S. Philips Corp., Tarrytown, NY, argued, for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief, was Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before ARCHER, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. ARCHER, Circuit Judge. Johannes R. Van Geuns appeals from the September 25, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  9. In re Baxter

    656 F.2d 679 (C.C.P.A. 1981)   Cited 19 times
    Explaining that "comprising" is a term of art meaning that the named elements are essential, but that other elements may be added and still form a construct

  10. Application of Cormany

    476 F.2d 998 (C.C.P.A. 1973)   Cited 9 times

    Patent Appeal No. 8775. April 19, 1973. Mark Levin, Pittsburgh, Pa., atty. of record, for appellants; Chisholm Spencer, Pittsburgh, Pa., Jones Lockwood, George R. Jones, Arlington, Va., of counsel. S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D.C., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges. RICH, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,350 times   1046 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,126 times   478 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  13. Section 41.50 - Decisions and other actions by the Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.50   Cited 34 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Requiring petitioners to raise the Board's failure to designate a new ground of rejection in a timely request for rehearing

  14. Section 41.37 - Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 32 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well

  15. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)

  16. Section 41.31 - Appeal to Board

    37 C.F.R. § 41.31   Cited 6 times   24 Legal Analyses

    (a)Who may appeal and how to file an appeal. An appeal is taken to the Board by filing a notice of appeal. (1) Every applicant, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the examiner to the Board by filing a notice of appeal accompanied by the fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(1) within the time period provided under § 1.134 of this title for reply. (2) Every owner of a patent under ex parte reexamination filed under § 1.510 of this title before November 29, 1999, any